Bleeding Hearts and Propaganda:
the Fall of Reason in the Church

Chapter Six
Are They Poor Because We Are Rich?

Fifty "socially conscious" Evangelicals gathered in 1973 in Chicago and formally defined the Liberal Evangelical platform. This gathering produced a paper called "The Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern." That historic meeting and the document it produced are commonly referred to simply as The Chicago Declaration.

The document said American Christians had "not demonstrated the love of God to those suffering social abuses" and they had "not proclaimed or demonstrated [H]is justice to an unjust society." It was signed by a number of religious leaders, including college professor Ron Sider, who convened the event, and Jim Wallis, who founded the Sojourners community and publishes Sojourners Magazine. In 1973, these two men referred to themselves as "radical evangelicals." (Sider had previously headed Evangelicals for McGovern.)

It is worth noting that the Chicago Declaration came on the heels of another radical secular statement made in Chicago. Just five years earlier, Chicago had hosted the ill-fated 1968 Democratic Convention. Seven defendants (known as the Chicago 7) were convicted of conspiracy to incite riots at the convention. (The conviction was later overturned). Two of the defendants, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, were founders of the Youth International Party (Y.I.P.) (which gave us the term "Yippies"). Another defendant was Tom Hayden, now a California state senator. Black Panther, Bobby Seale was tried separately on a similar charge.

The Chicago Declaration, drafted by the "radical evangelicals" in 1973, stood for twenty years as the Magna Charta of the Liberal Evangelical movement. Twenty years later, In 1993, some of the same radical Evangelicals convened in the windy city for a follow up convention called "Chicago II." Sider was there again, this time as president of Evangelicals for Social Action. So was Wallis. The were joined by other noted Christians: author Tom Sine, author and professor Richard Foster, and David McKenna who is president of Asbury Theological Seminary. Tony Campolo was master of ceremonies.

According to Christianity Today, "Chicago Declaration II" (in words reminiscent of the Ecumenical Women’s Conference who gathered to "re-imagine" a new god) called for "‘weeping’ over racism and other persistent social ills [and] ‘dreaming’ of a renewed church…" The itinerary for Saturday, November 20, seemed to leave no social issue unaddressed. The list of topics would have made the most Liberal churchman proud:

•Spirituality as Counter-Culture: The Power of the Spirit, & Gender, Race, Class and the Status Quo by Mary Fisher, an assistant professor at Asbury Theological Seminary.

•Sex and Saints: Ancient Sexual Attitudes and the New Testament Response, by Catherine Clark Kroeger, President of Christians for Biblical Equality. Her organization is described in the flyer advertising Chicago II as "an international fellowship of evangelical Christians working together for justice in gender issues both within and outside the Church.

•The People Perish: The Need for a New Social Vision in America, by Wallis.

•Jesus and Evangelicals: Do They Mix? by Jay Kesler, president of Taylor University in Upland, Indiana.

•Integrating Spirituality, Prayer, and Social Engagement, by Richard Lovelace, Professor of Church History at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

•Shifting the Church into Future Tense, by Tom Sine.

•Real Family Values: A Biblical Feminist Perspective, by Sharon Gallagher, editor of RADIX magazine, and Adjunct Professor of Media and Women’s Studies at New College Berkeley.

•The Holistic Mission Agenda for the 90’s: A Global Perspective, by William Dyrness, Dean of the School of Theology at Fuller Seminary, and author of Invitation to Cross-Cultural Theology.

•Saving the Family Without Paternalism or Extremism, by Jo Anne Lyon, an "active speaker on women’s issues in the Church."


The Liberal Evangelicals criticize what they see as the failure of social justice in America and they continually lament America’s materialism, chauvinism, and militarism. For the LEs, America and American Christianity are not only grossly materialistic, but blissfully unconcerned about the poor and downtrodden.

Everyone recognizes America is not perfect, nor is the American Church. Certainly no one defends the encroachment of materialism, godlessness, and secularism into the Church. Where that happens, repentance is called for.

However, the LEs see everything through a mea culpa filter. I’m not ready to plead the American Church guilty to the LE’s litany of accusations. The American Church is no doubt flawed, but it also is magnanimous, richly giving, frequently sacrificing, and often selfless. American dollars, leadership, and missionaries carry the burden of worldwide evangelism.

The real question is not "Are we Saints or Sinners?" It is not even, "Are we less than we could be?" The real question is "Do the LEs have better ideas than the Evangelical church as a whole?" I don’t think so.

Sider, for example, consistently criticizes the Evangelical community as self-satisfied and unconcerned about world misfortune. He (I think falsely) charges that Evangelicals normally take the side of rich oppressors rather than the oppressed poor. He goes so far as to call Evangelical theology "profoundly unorthodox" because it does not share the LE radical emphasis on the poor.

Sider’s concern for the poor is laudatory. Like Campolo, his emotional commitment to the downtrodden is commendable. His passion is encouraging. But, again like Campolo, his passion leads him astray. His methodology is as consistently foggy as it is empathetic.

Sider wants us to help the poor in Third World countries. Fine. But, he says we don’t care about them. He wrote a book to prove that–Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. If Chicago II was the Magna Charta of the Liberal Evangelical movement, Rich Christians (along with Tom Sine’s book, The Mustard Seed Conspiracy) has become the Constitution.

The writings of Sider and Sine clearly demonstrate that Liberalism has dramatically impacted their Evangelicalism. It does not seem possible to enter the heady courts of Liberalism and remain undiscipled by it. They are not simply on the left edge of Evangelicalism, in many ways they are more at home with the real Liberals.

And the problem is that the Liberals have left the blood, the word, and the simple gospel message for worldly, intellectual speculation. They have become snared by the sophistry of the world. But the wisdom of this world profits us nothing. The Apostle Paul spoke of the innate tension which exists between secular wisdom and godly wisdom:

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God's power.

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1Cor. 2:4-8 NIV).

Again, my complaint is not with the aims of the Liberal Evangelicals, it is with their conclusions. The deeper we probe the practical ramifications of their thinking, the more we see how far short it falls.


Liberal Evangelicals are captive to their past. They, like all of us, find their positions shaped by their past experience. Ron Sider, in particular, is a product of his upbringing and his education.

At heart, Sider is a pacifist of Anabaptist roots. He was raised on a farm in Canada the son of a pastor of the Brethren in Christ, a denomination described by Christianity Today as "an insular and rural denomination that combined elements of holiness, Anabaptist, and pietistic traditions." Anabaptists are known as the Left Wing of the Reformation or the Third Reformation. From the earliest days of the Protestant Reformation, they have been considered deeply committed conservative Christians, albeit radical and revolutionary.

Ron Sider consistently calls himself an Evangelical. While that may be true, there is no doubt that his is also a Liberal. Even Tony Campolo, who greatly respects Sider, agrees:

If you want to know Ron Sider’s view on Capital punishment, you don’t even have to ask. If you want to know his view on El Salvador, you don’t have to ask. If you want to know what he thinks about disarmament and the military, you don’t even have to ask. If it looks liberal, and it smells liberal, and it tastes liberal, it’s liberal.

No one who studies Sider can fail to appreciate his sincerity and genuine love for the oppressed. Again, both Campolo and Sider score high on compassion. The question, however, is whether Sider’s love for the poor has led him to make the same kind of mistakes Campolo was driven to make by his love for the (perceived) oppression of homosexuals. Jesus calls us to be "wise as serpents and gentle as doves." Matt. 10:16) They are half right: they are gentle as doves, but one must question their wisdom.

In chapter five, I quoted Kenneth Kantzer writing in Christianity Today about Tony Campolo: "Tony has a deep distrust of laissez-faire capitalism…[but] Tony is not a Marxist." Sider, like Campolo, was damned with faint praise in another Christianity Today article entitled "Ron Sider’s Unsettling Crusade." Here we find "Sider is no economist…[but] some critics [have] charged Sider with being a socialist, which certainly is not true.

In the same Christianity Today profile, Sider’s revolutionary bent is confirmed:

[At Waterloo Lutheran College] Sider met two outstanding mentors. The first was an invigorating, agnostic history professor who introduced him to "the standard intellectual doubts that come to anyone who has lived since the Enlightenment and knows what’s going on." He also introduced him to social activism, leading him on his first protest march–a demonstration against the 1960 South African police massacre at Sharpeville.

His second mentor was a very different character, John Warwick Montgomery. An outspoken, contentions evangelical, Montgomery arrived in Sider’s junior year as chairman of the history department.

From Waterloo college, Sider went to Yale. There he wrote his doctoral thesis on radical Reformer Karl Bodenstein von Karlstadt, a contemporary of Martin Luther. Sider’s radical pacifist views show up in much of his writing.

Such Anabaptist pacifism is seen in his article "International Aggression and Nonmilitary Defense," published in Christian Century. In that article Sider and Richard Taylor called the mere possession of nuclear weapons immoral. This conclusion arises out of their "moral horror" of nuclear war. They two men (writing before the collapse of the Soviet Union) suggested the United States pursue a course of "nonmilitary defense" against the (then) Soviet Union.

But when we examine their arguments, we discover they don’t seem to have a any idea of what a "nonmilitary defense" might consist of. They cite a few examples of passive resistance from history. They mention, for example, the example of Hungary’s opposition to Austria in the 19th century. (There, the Hungarians supposedly defeated the Austrians by resorting to "a strategy of absolute resistance without violence.") Sider and Taylor are not very convincing, nor do they even seem very convinced. They concede the shortcomings of "nonmilitary defense" are legion.

Their idea of "nonmilitary defense" sounds exactly like Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasing Hitler. Sider and Taylor suggest such a policy might have affected the military leaders of the former Soviet Union. Ironically, they suggest appeasement may well have prevented the horror of Hitler. "What if," they ask, "5 million people had been willing to die in a nonviolent struggle against Hitler? (Apparently in addition to the six-million Jewish deaths?) Is it really possible Sider can be so naive as to suggest that Hitler would have been deterred by passive resistance. Such a suggestion is nonsense; to make it in a nuclear world is abysmally dangerous.

If the United States would have followed those who called for unilateral disarmament a few years ago, we certainly would not have seen the end to the Cold War. The Cold War was won by "peace through strength." The Liberals who suggest that the Hitlers and Stalins of the world can be contained through placation set us up for disaster.

Sider and Taylor reach the height of naiveté at the close of their article on nonmilitary defense. They ask:

Does Jesus want us now to prepare ourselves massively to kill or massively to love our enemies?

It is this kind of simplistic Liberalism which makes the empty-headed optimism of the LEs sinister.


At the heart of Sider’s philosophy is the unwavering conviction that "God is on the side of the poor." This concept he defends continually. But what does he mean?

Certainly God is on the side of the oppressed poor. He is on the side of the hungry poor. He is on the side of the hopeless poor. He sends the gospel to the poor. He wants to heal their poverty. But Sider does not stop there.

For Sider, God also "opposes the rich." Again, we must ask what he means. Certainly God opposes rich oppressors. God opposes those who are captured by "the deceitfulness of riches" (Matt. 13:22) and those who love money (1Ti 6:10)

But Sider goes much further than that. He sees God fundamentally rejecting the rich and accepting the poor. While he admits that the Scriptures do not say that God loves the poor more than the rich, he thinks they imply that. He writes:

They [the Scriptures] do constantly assert that God lifts up the poor and disadvantaged. And they persistently insist that God casts down the wealthy and powerful. Why? Precisely because, according to Scripture, the rich often become wealthy by oppressing the poor and failing to feed the hungry.

One Liberal Evangelical, Tom Hanks, insists that such oppression is always the cause of poverty. And Sider says the entire Evangelical community is on the side of the rich oppressors:

The Evangelical community is largely on the side of the rich oppressors, rather than that of the oppressed poor.

Sider says the Evangelical Church, because it fails to see that God is for the poor and against the rich, has become profoundly unorthodox:

By largely ignoring the central biblical teaching that God is on the side of the poor, evangelical theology has been profoundly unorthodox. The Bible has just as much to say about this doctrine as it does about Jesus’ resurrection. And yet we evangelicals insist on the resurrection as a criterion of orthodoxy and largely ignore the equally prominent biblical teaching that God is on the side of the poor and the oppressed.

Sider is clearly wrong-headed here. Nowhere does God say He hates people to be rich and likes them to be poor. On the contrary, the Bible consistently demonstrates God feels just the opposite. He loves the poor all right, but he wants them be prosper. He wants them to have enough to eat, a place to live, time for leisure–the very things Sider criticizes about the American church.

I could fill the rest of this book with God’s declaration that he wants us to be well–well physically, emotionally, financially–not just spiritually. Beyond that, God teaches us that if we obey Him and walk in his ways, we will better ourselves. Sider and his friends need to reread the Book of Proverbs, if nothing else:

My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart,

for they will prolong your life many years and bring you prosperity. (Prov. 3: 1-2 NIV)

Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops;

hen your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine. (Prov. 3:9-10)

I am not attempting to enter into a discussion here of whether the righteous ever suffer–of course they do. And being a Christian will not make you rich. Nevertheless, following the law of the Lord will improve whatever condition you are in.

The point is, the rich and poor are alike unto God–He is no respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34) Neither does he condemn a hard-working, prudent man who prospers in the world. It is the heart of man God looks on. (1Sa 16:7) There is nothing inherently godly or ungodly about being either rich or poor.

But Sider not only thinks God opposes the rich and is on the side of the poor, he is absolutely convinced that a causal relationship exists between American wealth and Third World poverty. This is his basic assumption and the basic Liberal Evangelical assumption. It is central to everything Sider writes. I repeat, the central LE premise is: Third World countries are poor because Americans are rich! (Jim Wallis, the founder of the Sojourners community, said exactly that in his book, Agenda for Biblical People.) The LEs teach that we consume the world’s wealth at the expense of the poor. If we would just consume less, the poor would fare better.

Let me make it plainer. In Sider’s eyes. Evangelical Christians are not simply guilty of failing to respond to the needs of the poor. No, by being relatively wealthy, we are oppressing the poor. Absent from the Liberal Evangelical mind is the thought that God has blessed America because it (in times past at least) structured its society around Judeo/Christian principles. Sider, like all the historical revisionists, sees America as having raped and plundered its way to wealth at the expense of the poor.

I believe Sider’s fundamental assumptions are wrong and counter-productive. He assumes that American Christians, simply by curbing their materialism and consumption, could improve the lot of the poor in other nations. That is a very common–but erroneous–theory. Yet, one hears it everywhere Liberals moralize. It sounds very unselfish to look at American prosperity and suggest that somehow we could simply dismantle our standard of living and redistribute the wealth to the poor. This, by the way, is the blind economic philosophy which produced Communism.

Wealth redistribution programs–where the state appropriates the wealth of the nation and redistributes it –simply do not work. They don’t work because they destroy the initiative of the people to produce beyond their own needs. State redistribution programs which come into being in democracies are called Socialism; in totalitarian states they are called Communism.

If we have learned anything from the fall of Communism it is this:–Capitalism tends to produce a rising standard of living and Communism impoverishes nations. Western Socialist nations are in the process of spending the earnings produced by capitalism. When they have spent it, where will they get a fresh supply?

Lest you think I am leaving the task of a preacher to become a political advocate, let me assure you I am not. I am simply pointing out that the biblical perspective is not social in essence, it is declarational. Jesus and the Apostles did not attempt to teach us that government policies renews us, but that conversion does. Evangelicals understand that emphasis; Liberals do not; Liberal Evangelicals are forgetting it.


When you strip the LEs of their socially radical rhetoric, you are left with a tired, unworkable wealth redistribution system. One example serves to illustrate my point.

Sider’s anger against American Christian affluence led him to suggest that a reasonable way to help Third World poor is to reduce the construction of church buildings in the United States. That is an oft-repeated, but non-demonstrable proposition. He expressed his anger over Christian "economic relationships" in this way:

Present economic relationships in the worldwide body of Christ are unbiblical, sinful, a hindrance to evangelism, and a desecration of the body and blood of Jesus Christ…It is a sinful abomination for a small fraction of the world’s Christians living in the Northern Hemisphere to grow richer year by year while our brothers and sisters in Christ in the Third World ache and suffer for lack of minimal health care, minimal education, and in thousands and thousands of cases, just enough food to escape starvation.

That paragraph is taken from an article Sider wrote in Christianity Today, called "Cautions Against Ecclesiastical Elegance." The title suggests he is going to tell us not to build glass cathedrals–and, indeed, he does. (Although he actually says, "I would not have too much trouble with one ‘cathedral’ built to celebrate the splendor of the Creator in each larger population center if all Christ’s body in that area could share it.) But he goes much further than to caution against opulence. He asks us to radically reconsider our basic approach to Church community.

He wonders, for example, if we should air condition our churches while brothers and sisters starve in foreign lands? Should we buy a new organ, or should we instead send the money overseas? Why don’t we have several different congregations use one building?

Again, those suggestions, if made sensibly, call for prudence and thrift. No one can argue that such values should advise new church construction. But those suggestions belie a utopian naiveté which is typical of the Liberal Evangelical approach. They also belie the fact that Sider is out of touch with what it means to plant a church in America and lead it into responsible mission giving.

Sider assumes that if we put three or four congregations in the same utilitarian building on Sunday–one in the morning, one in the afternoon, one in the evening, and one Saturday evening–somehow we would come up with more money to send to the Third World. This simplistic idea displays an abysmal lack of comprehension of what the local church community is about. But it is typical of pie-in-the-sky liberal thinking (I’m speaking here of both secular and religious liberals).

Sider apparently thinks the Christian Church would not suffer in membership and commitment if we adopted the austere style he pictures as godly. That notion is based, I believe, in his determination to superimpose his picture of church community upon the entire Church. I am happy enough in a warehouse church (I pioneered a church which moved through three warehouses on its way to purchasing a building of its own). But not everyone in America is. Am I to say that Lutherans or Presbyterians (who may happen to be affluent) who want to attend church in their own neighborhoods should build a warehouse without air conditioning on the ill-conceived notion that somehow people will come to it and leave an offering for foreign missions?

Secondly, Sider’s picture of a local, affluent church wasting money on air conditioning and stained glass windows puts him out of touch with the Evangelical Church and, I think disqualifies him from preaching to it. Again, I was the pastor of a small church for ten years and helped establish more than a dozen others. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it does ground me in reality. Sider’s university perspective apparently did not do the same for him.

I have visited more than a hundred small Evangelical churches and spoken with countless pastors about what they face on a daily basis. Many of them, like me, started in warehouses and eventually built buildings. Most of the buildings are not opulent. In fact I have seen few opulent Evangelical churches.

What these pastors face is the challenge of bringing a diverse body of Christians into a sense of community and wholeness. These are Christians at various stages of growth and development. They come to the Church with needs as well as gifts.

One of the things I discovered when working as a supervising pastor of other pastors was that a church body needs a comfortable home if it is going to be healthy. I said comfortable, not opulent. There is a sense of "place" about a Church. Perhaps that is why we typically have had a "church on every corner" in America. It is a symbol of a community which comes together and makes a stand within a larger community–a stand for God.

The local church and its building is a picture as old as the old Testament synagogue. In fact, much of the history of the wandering Jews was a lament to get the Lord out of the tabernacle in the desert and into a real "home." God allowed Solomon to build Him a home–and what a home it was:

The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty wide and twenty high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold, and he also overlaid the altar of cedar.

Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold, and he extended gold chains across the front of the inner sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold.

So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary. (I Kgs. 6:20–22)

Were there no poor in Solomon’s time when the Lord directed him to build a gold-domed temple? Is God limited in the resources He has to distribute? Is it even reasonable, as Sider suggests, that several Christian churches could share a common meeting place and thereby improve the economic conditions of people elsewhere in the world?

You have heard this sentiment before: "I don’t think God wants us to build cathedrals while people are starving." This argument, if reduced to absurdity, would mean that American missionary efforts would improve if there were no church buildings in America. That is, of course, ludicrous.

All simplistic wealth-redistribution programs seem to blissfully ignore basic economics. The health of the American Church, I would argue, rests in part upon the fact that church buildings are widely distributed among our neighborhoods. The millions of dollars Americans give to foreign missions might be non-existent without the structure of the local church, including its buildings.

Finally, Sider seems not to understand that America is not just an economic accident. It is not simply a rich geographic area the Puritans stumbled upon. Rather, it is an economy which has grown from the untamed, uncivilized, uncultivated land the Pilgrim fathers found, to a wealthy superpower. The Pilgrims came here to prosper spiritually and materially–to pursue, life, liberty, and happiness. They, and their immediate successors were wise enough to know that liberty exists only in opportunity.

National wealth is not simply discovered under a rock. It is a national economy forged out of principles which are revealed in the Bible and discovered by Western Philosophy.

Most often, national poverty can be traced, not to a lack of natural resources, but to an oppressive political government. Spiritual health generates material health. While the poor of the world need our financial help, they need the religion and philosophy which produced it.

The Liberal Evangelicals have the cart before the horse.


I can remember the summer I took three Ford Vans to Tacate Mexico to build a mess hall for a small Christian farm camp. The camp served as a way station for Mexican men who had been released from prison. Pastor Ernesto Hernandez took prison parolees to the farm to give them intense supervision while they learned to accommodate themselves to the outside world. They stayed at the farm twenty-four hours a day and worked and prayed at regular intervals.

As always when I go to Mexico, I am discouraged by the poverty. Maybe overwhelmed would be a better word–I am overwhelmed by the poverty. That is what drove us to go on a "mission" there.

We planned the event for a year. We gathered several thousand dollars in cash to pay for the building, rented the vans, pulled an enormous trailer of provisions and headed south. During our time there, we poured a cement floor, erected a frame building and even did some rudimentary wiring.

Every night I preached at a different church (with pastor (Hernandez interpreting). As I met the people and I reacted to the poverty (much, I’m sure, in the same way Sider reacts). I asked pastor Hernandez what we could do to help the people we were ministering to. His answer amazed me.

"What the people need from America," he said, "is hope."

"What do you mean?" I asked.

Ernesto said, "When one of our young men wants to leave the barrio, when he wants to better himself–to go to school for example–he has to fight the attitude of his community. They ask him, ‘Are you better than us?’ What they need is the power to believe that they can find a way out of the barrio. You can help us understand that it is possible–with God’s help–to find a better life."

The Liberal Evangelicals miss something important. While they continue to wring their hands and condemn the American standard of living as "sinful." they miss something. I doubt I’m going to be able to help them see what I think they are missing, because their world view is too fixed in the Liberal solution.

What I would say to them simply is this: American wealth is not what causes Third World poverty!

If they could get that concept I think they could more effectively motivate and direct American giving. They could promote American Christians’ involvement with third World poor in meaningful ways. They would be much more effective than condemning us for being selfish.

The very thing they denigrate–the American entrepreneurial dream–is the real solution for the rest of the world. The American dream is exportable. Instead of dismantling it at home, pawning it, and sending the cash to Third World dictators, we need to run with the vision.

The classic Christian Liberals of the 19th Century understood it was Christians the untamed world needed. They were right, and as long as they focused on spreading the gospel, Christianity moved into foreign lands, established beachheads, and brought health and healing wherever it went.

The hope is not in reworking American "social justice." The real solution is to export biblical solutions to nations which are downtrodden spiritually. "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16)

When we went to Mexico to build a building for Ernesto, we took money. Lots of it. Money given by generous members of a small church in Idaho Falls, Idaho that needed it’s own roof fixed. But, more importantly, we took people. We took twenty people who loved, laughed with, and prayed with people who need hope. So you see, I’m not suggesting we keep our money at home, let us send it where it is needed. But that is secondary to sending the gospel.

Today the secular Liberal elite attempts to revise American history. They would have the world believe that a bunch of rich robber-barons raped the American landscape which was dripping with gold. The truth is, Western civilization found a New World where biblical principles allowed industrious men and women to better themselves in pursuit of the American dream.

The Liberal Evangelical needs a refresher course in American history and civics, to say nothing of economics.

However, as the following chapter will demonstrate, it probably wouldn’t help them.